ATTAR SINGH Vs. TAHOORA KHWAJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been preferred under Section 25- B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (here in after referred to as Act?) assailing the order dated 27.08.2007 passed by the ld. Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in Eviction Petition No. E-1013/06, whereby the application of the petitioner seeking leave to defend was dismissed and eviction order under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act was passed in favour of the respondent in respect of suit property bearing no. 5182, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.

(2.) In the eviction petition filed by the respondent, it was averred that, her father late Nawab Sultan Yar Khan was the owner of the suit property and after his demise, she became its owner by virtue of a registered 2 partition deed executed among all his heirs and representatives. The petitioner is the occupant of tenanted premises which consists of a 10x10 room at the ground floor of the suit property. It is submitted in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises is required bona fide by the respondent for meeting the residential requirement of herself and the family members dependent upon her for their residence. The respondent and her husband are doctors by profession and are residing in U.S.A. It was submitted that she is in possession of only half dalan and open courtyard in front of dalan with no kitchen, store and bathroom, which is not sufficient to meet the residential requirements of her family comprising of her husband, a daughter and a son. It is pleaded by the respondent that her children intended to come to India and pursue BAMS/BUMS courses and she would also reside with them, with her husband frequently visiting them from U.S.A. It is also submitted that the petitioner had not paid rent to the respondent since 01.01.1984. The absence of any other residential accommodation is also pleaded by the respondent in the eviction petition.

(3.) In the application seeking leave to contest, the ownership of the respondent qua the suit property and the bona fides of the respondent?s requirement are questioned by the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent is well settled in U.S.A. with her family and it is highly unlikely that she or her children would ever return to India and the only object of the eviction petition is to wrestle the tenanted premises back from the petitioner, so that it could be converted into a commercial property. In support of this contention, it is urged by the petitioner that the respondent has never visited India even once after her marriage and her chances of returning here are remote. It is submitted by the petitioner that he had paid rent up to December, 2003 to one of the legal heirs namely Mr. Naved Yar Khan. It is also submitted that the respondent is in possession of several other properties; although no documentary proof was produced by the petitioner to strengthen this plea. The respondent, in reply to the leave to defend application of the petitioner, denied all the averments and reiterated those of the eviction petition.